1901. 105 



IS THE HOLIvY DKECIOUS? 



BY THOMAS COOKE-TRENCH. 



In his charming "Memories of the Months' 1 Sir Herbert 

 Maxwell makes the somewhat startling statement that " the 

 Holly is, as everybody knows, dioecious," or words to that effect. 

 As I happened not to be one of the everybody who know, I 

 laid down the book when I came to the passage and resorted 

 to such authorities as were at hand. As, however, I found in 

 these no confirmation of Sir Herbert's view, I ventured to 

 write to him, and to ask him the authority for his statement. 

 In reply he referred me to Darwin's " Forms of Flowers," 

 p. 297. As the passage contains several noteworthy state- 

 ments I transcribe all of it that refers to the Holly: — 



In the several works which I have consulted, one author alone 

 (Vaucher) says that the Holly is dioecious. During several years I have 

 examined many plants, but have never found one that was really 

 hermaphrodite. I mention this genus because the stamens ill the female 

 flowers, although quite destitute of pollen, are but slightly, and some- 

 times not at all, shorter than the perfect stamens in the male flowers. 

 In the latter the ovary is small and the pistil is almost aborted. The 

 filaments of the perfect stamens adhere for a greater length to the 

 petals than in the female flowers. The corolla of the latter is rather 

 smaller than that of the male. The male trees produce a greater number 

 of flowers than the females. Asa Gray informs me that Ilex opaca, which 

 represents in the United States our Common Holly, appears (judging 

 from dried flowers) to be in a similar state ; and so it is, according to 

 Vaucher, with several other but not with all the species of the genus." 



It is not quite clear what Darwin means to convey by 

 introducing the word "really" before "hermaphrodite." I 

 take it, however, to be intended to contrast the latter word 

 with " pseudo-hermaphrodite," which is what the Holly is 

 according to his description. 



With so cautious and practised "an observer, the fact that 

 Darwin found the authorities all but unanimously opposed to 

 him only makes it the more probable that he is right, for it 

 would certainly tend to make him very cautious and exhaustive 

 in his experiments. At the same time it makes one anxious 

 to know the result of subsequent investigations carried out 

 with a full knowledge of the conclusion at which Darwin had 

 arrived. 



